Let’s call this what it is, a set-up.
In Barbados, politicians can access pension benefits at 50 years old, while the people they claim to serve must wait until 67, with plans to push that to 68 by 2034. Two standards. One rulebook for them, another for the people. That is not leadership. That is privilege wrapped in policy.
In Barbados, politicians can access pension benefits at 50 years old, while the people they claim to serve must wait until 67, with plans to push that to 68 by 2034. Two standards. One rulebook for them, another for the people. That is not leadership. That is privilege wrapped in policy.
Ask yourself: why the rush to secure comfort for politicians, and the constant delay for the people?
Why is the pensionable age for ordinary workers, people who labor for decades, who build, clean, teach, heal, and carry the weight of the nation, pushed further and further out of reach? Why design a system where some may never live long enough to receive what they paid into all their lives?
Why is the pensionable age for ordinary workers, people who labor for decades, who build, clean, teach, heal, and carry the weight of the nation, pushed further and further out of reach? Why design a system where some may never live long enough to receive what they paid into all their lives?
This isn’t accidental. It’s intentional.
Politicians stand on podiums and look into cameras promising to “protect the elderly” and “serve the people.” Yet their actions tell a very different story. Their policies do not protect; they postpone. They do not serve; they secure themselves first. This is not help, it is treason against the trust of the people.
How can anyone enjoy their pension when the government keeps moving the finish line?
How can dignity in old age exist when the age of access is deliberately pushed beyond reach, while politicians quietly enjoy early pensions funded by the very people they burden?
How can dignity in old age exist when the age of access is deliberately pushed beyond reach, while politicians quietly enjoy early pensions funded by the very people they burden?
Let’s be clear: there is nothing special about a politician.
No divine status. No superior labor. No moral exemption. They are not above the nurse, the mason, the vendor, the teacher, the sanitation worker. Yet the law treats them as if they are. That is one-sided legislation, and it exposes exactly where the government’s interests lie, with themselves.
No divine status. No superior labor. No moral exemption. They are not above the nurse, the mason, the vendor, the teacher, the sanitation worker. Yet the law treats them as if they are. That is one-sided legislation, and it exposes exactly where the government’s interests lie, with themselves.
If fairness truly mattered, the rule would be simple and equal:
One pensionable age. For everyone.
Government and people alike. No shortcuts. No special lanes. No quiet benefits for those in power while the masses are told to wait, and wait, and wait some more.
One pensionable age. For everyone.
Government and people alike. No shortcuts. No special lanes. No quiet benefits for those in power while the masses are told to wait, and wait, and wait some more.
And while the people struggle, watch how easily funds flow to corporations, elites, and the already wealthy. Watch how fast doors open for friends of friends, family connections, sidekicks, and insiders. But when do the people ask for relief? Silence. Delays. Excuses.
That is a devious act.
A government that pulls money closer to itself while pushing the people’s benefits further away does not have the people’s best interests at heart. It is a government focused on self-preservation, even if it means the people fail, suffer, or never collect what is rightfully theirs.
So, the question remains, and it demands an answer:
Why should politicians enjoy pensions at 50 while the people must wait until 67, soon 68?
What justifies this imbalance? What moral ground supports it?
Why should politicians enjoy pensions at 50 while the people must wait until 67, soon 68?
What justifies this imbalance? What moral ground supports it?
There is none.
This is not fairness.
They do not care.
This is betrayal dressed up as policy.
They do not care.
This is betrayal dressed up as policy.
And the people deserve better.
How much more does the government want from the people?
Taxes are already beyond high, yet price gouging is happening at every turn. Food, utilities, rent, fuel, everything is rising, and the burden is always placed on the small man. Every honest attempt to create something, to hustle, to survive, to help oneself is met with another tax, another fee, another hand reaching into empty pockets.
Taxes are already beyond high, yet price gouging is happening at every turn. Food, utilities, rent, fuel, everything is rising, and the burden is always placed on the small man. Every honest attempt to create something, to hustle, to survive, to help oneself is met with another tax, another fee, another hand reaching into empty pockets.
This is no longer governance; it feels like extraction.
The people are squeezed from every angle, while relief is nowhere in sight. Unfairness has become policy, betrayal has become routine, and theft has been normalized under the name of law. The question the people are left asking is simple and painful: when does it end?
The people are squeezed from every angle, while relief is nowhere in sight. Unfairness has become policy, betrayal has become routine, and theft has been normalized under the name of law. The question the people are left asking is simple and painful: when does it end?
No comments:
Post a Comment